OOB Pacific needs some tuning.

[swdw]

Some issues in gameplay

1. Japanese subs get to shoot every other turn, US subs don't. Yet US sub crews were better trained and reload times were better than the Japanese. You are assuming better torpedoes like the long Lance means they reload faster- not true..
2. I have never seen more than 1 point of damage on the first attack of a US sub. Seriously? No randomization of possible damage?

Submarines are a joke in the game. No chance to evade depth charge attacks, always minimal damage on the first attack. The biggest issue in WW2 was subs getting into position against fast moving warships.

US submarines sank 214 Japanese warships in WWII including
4 fleet carriers
4 escort carriers
1 battleship
3 heavy cruisers
9 light Cruisers
33 Destroyers
The rest are DE's, Minesweepers, Gunboats, etc.

Source of ships sunk- Historical Naval Ships Association

You should be allowed to carry Marine Raiders on a submarine. (no supply from the sub once landed though)

Also, heavily damaged ships should have their movement reduced. I've seen no evidence of this happening.

Fleet carriers were actually as fast as heavy cruisers. They should have one more movement point.
Carriers
Lexington class 33 knots
Yorktown class 32.5 knots
Essex class 33 knots

Heavy cruisers
New Orleans class 32.5 knots
Wichita class 33 knots
Baltimore class 32.8 knots

Last, destroyers should be allowed to move at least one hex and still use sonar.

[Asap]

I totally agree with you. I never used any submarines in OOB. Worst and most useless unit in the game.

[Erik2]

Some of us have been nagging the devs about these points since the original beta
No luck yet.

[kondi754]

Some issues in gameplay

1. Japanese subs get to shoot every other turn, US subs don't. Yet US sub crews were better trained and reload times were better than the Japanese. You are assuming better torpedoes like the long Lance means they reload faster- not true..
2. I have never seen more than 1 point of damage on the first attack of a US sub. Seriously? No randomization of possible damage?

Submarines are a joke in the game. No chance to evade depth charge attacks, always minimal damage on the first attack. The biggest issue in WW2 was subs getting into position against fast moving warships.

US submarines sank 214 Japanese warships in WWII including
4 fleet carriers
4 escort carriers
1 battleship
3 heavy cruisers
9 light Cruisers
33 Destroyers
The rest are DE's, Minesweepers, Gunboats, etc.

Source of ships sunk- Historical Naval Ships Association

You should be allowed to carry Marine Raiders on a submarine. (no supply from the sub once landed though)

Also, heavily damaged ships should have their movement reduced. I've seen no evidence of this happening.

Fleet carriers were actually as fast as heavy cruisers. They should have one more movement point.
Carriers
Lexington class 33 knots
Yorktown class 32.5 knots
Essex class 33 knots

Heavy cruisers
New Orleans class 32.5 knots
Wichita class 33 knots
Baltimore class 32.8 knots

Last, destroyers should be allowed to move at least one hex and still use sonar.

It would be a good changes but I think submarines still not be able to sink any other ship. I suggest let him have the possiblility to attack each turn (without waiting), but should have a limited number of torpedoes (suggest 7-8), and after exhausting their supply would have to sail away. It would be necessary to build a "wolf herds".
I think such changes will be necessary if the devs will create a "Battle of the Atlantic" DLC. Submarines were the biggest advantage the German Kriegsmarine, and if the current solutions will remain, it would be unrealistic smashing Allied convoys.
I would prefer not to modify the statistics of surface ships.

[hrafnkolbrandr]

Wolves pack. Prey animals herd.

[kondi754]

Wolves pack, indeed. I forgot this term.
Unfortunately my English is far from perfect, but I try.

[bru888]

I agree about the uselessness of U.S. subs in this game. I've also noticed that enemy subs "don't play by the rules" (i.e., can fire every turn) and seem to be more "nimble" (e.g., can move more than two hexes) and therefore are unfairly advantaged. This is not whining. This is pointing out that, for the second time through the U.S. Pacific campaign, I have ignored my own submarine capability because it is useless. Meanwhile, Japanese subs are able to blast away like artillery. This is probably the most obvious fault in the game.

[prattaa]

I agree with subs being useless in general and the speed of fast carriers and battleships. However, IJN subs play by the same rules as USN as far as I know. The US scenarios tend to have clusters of subs so it's possible you encounter more than one sub at a time leading you to think they can fire faster. Philippines Sea for example there are probably a dozen subs guarding the Saipan airfield.

[bru888]

IJN subs play by the same rules as USN as far as I know. The US scenarios tend to have clusters of subs so it's possible you encounter more than one sub at a time leading you to think they can fire faster. Philippines Sea for example there are probably a dozen subs guarding the Saipan airfield.

That could be - thanks for the observation. That scenario may be where I drew my conclusion, come to think of it.

[LadyLex]

Submarines aren't the only unit in need of work. I've been working on a mod to add / update certain units in the Pacific. As part of this I've been reviewing the unit data and found some thing equally as troubling (at least to me).

Consider the following fighters; the Japanese A6M Zero, F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair and P-51 Mustang.

The Zero had the longest range at 1929 miles and in game has a fuel rating of 13. It's max speed was 332 mph and in game the mp rating is 10.
The Wildcat and Hellcat had fairly short legs for carrier based aircraft at 845 and 820 miles respectfully with max speeds comparable to the Zero at 331 and 330 mph. in game ratings are mp = 10 and fuel = 12 for both aircraft.
The Corsair topped out at 417 mph and 1015 miles with in game ratings of mp = 10 and fuel = 12.
Finally the Mustang was the fastest of the examples at 440 mph with a 1650 mile range. In game ratings are mp = 12 and fuel = 14.

Certainly there is a certain amount of abstraction needed in games, but it should be proportional. The fuel ratings, which should represent the range of the aircraft are a bit out of whack. In the game a Wildcat and Hellcat can remain airborne nearly as long as a Zero, yet the Zero had almost twice the range. Interestingly the Zero has the longest range of the examples, yet in game the Mustang has a higher fuel rating.

Speed, represented by the mp rating seem Ok for the Zero, Wildcat, and Hellcat. All have very comparable top speeds. But, the Corsair is about 85 mph faster than the Zero but has the same mp rating. The Mustang is only slightly faster than the Corsair, yet it's mp rating is 2 higher.

Scale certainly plays a roll in all of this, but performance should be proportional. The Zero's range was longer than the Mustang, but in game has a higher fuel rating.

[Horst]

All submarines as in v2.9.8 have a torpedo CD of 3-5 turns, as long as they aren’t kamikaze. IIRC the original campaigns so far, they hardly come alone in AI groups. They have trouble to chase surface ships submerged, so AI sub groups don’t necessarily always attack on the same turn together what gives this constant-volley impression.
The only thing that maybe bothers me about submarines is, that they don’t need to surface once in a while to recharge the batteries. I guess it would only be too troublesome to handle them, in particular for the AI. It’s quite frustrating to find the AI submarines when they are always submerged, while the AI seem to have no trouble finding my units through the fog of war.

Recently, I’ve had so many cases during the Blitzkrieg and Winter War campaign where the AI knew exactly where my artillery units on the move are or when my concealed Finnish ski troop left the town on the Suomussalmi map to make the AI conquer the town on the next turn. Such omniscience is no fun at all.

[kondi754]

Submarines aren't the only unit in need of work. I've been working on a mod to add / update certain units in the Pacific. As part of this I've been reviewing the unit data and found some thing equally as troubling (at least to me).

Consider the following fighters; the Japanese A6M Zero, F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair and P-51 Mustang.

The Zero had the longest range at 1929 miles and in game has a fuel rating of 13. It's max speed was 332 mph and in game the mp rating is 10.
The Wildcat and Hellcat had fairly short legs for carrier based aircraft at 845 and 820 miles respectfully with max speeds comparable to the Zero at 331 and 330 mph. in game ratings are mp = 10 and fuel = 12 for both aircraft.
The Corsair topped out at 417 mph and 1015 miles with in game ratings of mp = 10 and fuel = 12.
Finally the Mustang was the fastest of the examples at 440 mph with a 1650 mile range. In game ratings are mp = 12 and fuel = 14.

Certainly there is a certain amount of abstraction needed in games, but it should be proportional. The fuel ratings, which should represent the range of the aircraft are a bit out of whack. In the game a Wildcat and Hellcat can remain airborne nearly as long as a Zero, yet the Zero had almost twice the range. Interestingly the Zero has the longest range of the examples, yet in game the Mustang has a higher fuel rating.

Speed, represented by the mp rating seem Ok for the Zero, Wildcat, and Hellcat. All have very comparable top speeds. But, the Corsair is about 85 mph faster than the Zero but has the same mp rating. The Mustang is only slightly faster than the Corsair, yet it's mp rating is 2 higher.

Scale certainly plays a roll in all of this, but performance should be proportional. The Zero's range was longer than the Mustang, but in game has a higher fuel rating.

Wildcat had a slightly smaller range than Zero, when working with additional fuel tanks.

[LadyLex]

Wildcat had a slightly smaller range than Zero, when working with additional fuel tanks.

True, however in the game there is a specialization representing the use of drop tanks. Thus the aircraft should be modeled without the extended range representing the use of these tanks.

[bjarmson]

While I agree based on the above numbers the game could use a little tweaking of aircraft, the fact is there were so many different models of each aircraft that it is hard to claim definitive numbers for speed, range, etc. The Zero was obviously a better fighter than the Wildcat (though US pilots soon invented tactics that helped nullified its superiorities), but the Hellcat and Corsair were vastly superior aircraft (claimed kill ratios versus the Zero, Hellcat 13:1, Corsair 11:1). The Zero was a light (2800 kg), relatively underpowered (around 1000 hp engine), minimally-protected (lacked armor protection for pilot and had no self-sealing gas tanks). The Hellcat (5700 kg, 2200 hp engine) and Corsair (5600 kg, 2300 hp) both with extensive armor protection and self-sealing gas tanks, were much superior fighters, a fact represented by their kill ratios. The Zero was essentially obsolete by mid 43, which combined with a decline of skilled pilots in the Japanese navy, reflecting many of the best being killed at Midway, lead to a quick decline in Japanese air capabilities. Speed was an obvious factor with the Zero topping out in the 330 mph (530 km/h) range while the Hellcat was generally in the 380 mph (630 km/h) range and the Corsair being even faster 400+ mph (700+ km/h). Add in their better trained pilots and builtin toughness factors, its little wonder they destroyed the Japanese aircraft at such high kill ratios.

[WarHomer]

I´m all for some tweaking of units, but we also mustn´t forget that the campaigns do alter the historical facts. The japs doesn´t loose at midway, guadalcanal and so forth, they win. They maintain their experienced pilots, grunts and seaman and that would have a massive impact the other way around. It´s the japs that develop superior strategies to counter better American planes, while of course they also hold unto their colonies and are able to keep building better machines themselves.

[bjarmson]

WarHomer, the consensus of those in the now, war historians, etc, is while Midway certainly was the turning point of the War in the Pacific, essentially assuring Japan would lose, it would have made no real difference to the eventual outcome if the US had lost all 3 carriers and all their aircraft. The disparities in economic production so favored the US that parity in carriers and other ships would have happened by late 43, by early 44 the US would have had a significant advantage in numbers, and by 45 there would have been vast numerical US advantage in virtually every important category. So even had the Japanese won Midway and Guadalcanal, it would have made little difference in the way things turned out, probably extending the war a year at the most. Remember Europe and the war against Germany was the priority. The Pacific received only about 25/30% of US production yet we still beat the Japanese handily. If needed by mid 45 the US could have switched all production toward Japan's defeat, and with a 10 to 1 disparity in production and ever increasing technological/organizational edge, it's pretty clear the US could not really lose the war except by quitting. Which after Pearl Harbor wasn't going to happen. Using these factors might have made for some interesting 44/45 hypothetical scenarios.

Check out the stats for yourself: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

[BiteNibbleChomp]

WarHomer, the consensus of those in the now, war historians, etc, is while Midway certainly was the turning point of the War in the Pacific, essentially assuring Japan would lose, it would have made no real difference to the eventual outcome if the US had lost all 3 carriers and all their aircraft. The disparities in economic production so favored the US that parity in carriers and other ships would have happened by late 43, by early 44 the US would have had a significant advantage in numbers, and by 45 there would have been vast numerical US advantage in virtually every important category. So even had the Japanese won Midway and Guadalcanal, it would have made little difference in the way things turned out, probably extending the war a year at the most. Remember Europe and the war against Germany was the priority. The Pacific received only about 25/30% of US production yet we still beat the Japanese handily. If needed by mid 45 the US could have switched all production toward Japan's defeat, and with a 10 to 1 disparity in production and ever increasing technological/organizational edge, it's pretty clear the US could not really lose the war except by quitting. Which after Pearl Harbor wasn't going to happen. Using these factors might have made for some interesting 44/45 hypothetical scenarios.

Check out the stats for yourself: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Numerically, that is certainly true, I have heard some of the figures as 15% Pacific effort. However, I rarely see the substantial issue of where the USA can base its stuff out of answered.

In the case of OoB, we have the New Caledonia scenario, which I understand to be part of the extended 'Operation FS' the Japanese planned (although for mid '42 rather than mid '43). Part of that plan was to knock out Fiji, which would have led to Samoa falling soon after. Except for Pearl Harbour and Australia, the US doesn't have any major bases to operate out of in the Pacific. Sure, the Americans could supply their fleet from Pearl, but a major amphibious operation can't be conducted with the nearest friendly base being a 1000 km away or more. Maybe some of it can (Guadalcanal or something was based in Pearl), but not all (note Guadalcanal had the help from Tulagi or somewhere, and New Caledonia isn't that far away either).

Plus, in the first map the fuel depots at Pearl are destroyed. That cripples the US ability to do anything from Pearl for a while, and then they have to divert stuff to rebuilding all those fuel storages before operations can be launched from there etc.

Plus, you get to sink major US fleets at Brisbane, Christchurch and Melbourne, so I think that with the successes you can form at the start, Japan isn't acting too unreasonably. Especially if you consider the fact that at various points in the campaign you are told of German successes. In particular, the D-Day one isn't unreasonable if you allow Rommel to defend the beaches. He had a million men in Calais, which would have handily beaten 10 divisions if given the orders to do so.

- BNC

[WarHomer]

BiteNibbleChomp, my point exactly, though with more detailed explanation

There definately should be a way for the axis to win, or we could just read a history book instead.

[bjarmson]

The essential fact of WWII is Germany and Japan were both at a huge disadvantages in manpower, resource availability, and economic production (Germany could not even outproduce the USSR). The longer the war continued the worst their situations became. That's why both tried for quick knockout blows at the beginning. The Germans really needed to win by 1941 and the Japanese by 1942. After that there was virtually no chance for either. Both the Germans and the Japanese vastly underestimated the tenacity of their enemies and overestimated their own capabilities. Both paid the price for their arrogance.

Stalin supposedly said "quantity is a quality all its own". And while the USSR mostly used quantity to win, the US used both. Another little known fact, while the Germans had far fewer casualties than the Soviets, their casualties were disproportionately high among experienced line officers and NCOs. These losses proved irreplaceable, or as one book about the Barbarossa operation puts it, the Germans were 'victored to death'. As for the Japanese, even if they had been able to fight to some sort of parity with the US (which given the huge disparities in economic production was highly unlikely), in Aug 45 they faced battle-hardened, armor-laden Soviet troops that swept aside their vaunted (at least in their own eyes) million man Manchurian army in a matter of weeks and US atomic weaponry. A double whammy. Should there be a way for the Axis powers to win? Maybe, but it shouldn't be as easy as the Japanese hypothetical scenarios make it seem. Because the USSR couldn't allow Nazi Germany to exist next door, neither could the US allow a militant Japan to occupy the Pacific. Both were essentially fights to the death. Unconditional Surrender, which neither Germany nor Japan could accomplish.

[WarHomer]

Yes, Zum Tode Gesiegt, I´ve read quite a bit of WW2 literature also, but this is a WW2 game that allows me to win crucial victories that the Axis didn´t, and therefore I think it´s reasonable to have a chance to alter the outcome.

Historical production output and manpower shouldn´t passively be allowed to alter this. What would be the point in playing, and who can seriously predict what would have happened if Germany had in fact taken Moscow (and Stalin) or London, won the Battle of Britain, wiped out the BEF at Dunkirk, stopped D-day on the beaches and so forth. The same goes for Japan if the US was forced to commit massivily more in the ETO while sustaining loss after loss in the POT?

I do agree that it shouldnt be as easy (or as fast) as in the current Pacific installment.